Korvette
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Korvette
-
Maybe? But then the CR1 would have the same signature without the cyclops eye TISH hood on the top of the gun that is flat since it pretty much carriers the same slopes/design.
-
Ah yes, 'stealth'. Vickers threw a kitchen sink of marketing at this thing. The Abrams is probably stealthier with its bouncing angles from a direct front ping.
-
The further velocities you acquire with DU at those speeds is simply diminishing returns, you don't suddenly lose penetration. A4 will simply just go faster and better.
-
CV12 at 1500 hp is a perfect enough engine. Achieving 60 mph makes me feel like the context was that they took the tank and ran it off the ramp on HMS QE. It's just impossible for CR3 especially if its got APS/armor packages on it. The fastest tracked vehicles in the world can just about exceed such speeds reliably but are all infinitely lighter with better hp/t and special designed tracks.
-
hm yes.... "mk 3"
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Korvette replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
How many 'Get real' gifs must I post. -
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Korvette replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
-
Okay thanks, I was reading off this where it said 'width of recoiling mass' which seemed off but sort of what I was trying to find.
-
I did also specifically state the amount being absorbed is also important.
-
Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english). But Russian MBT's also don't necessarily have 'strong' suspensions like the NATO mbts and are much lighter. So they dont have to give much care to ground pressure and track size due to their weight being 20+ tons less than the West. And just as said the K2's hydro suspension will help a bit with absorbing the force from firing, just like the Leclerc and admittedly CR2, though watching them fire with the additional weight packages makes them seem like unmovable bunkers instead of 'stable firing platforms'. It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.
